Re: [sig-policy] prop-085: Eligibility for critical infrastructureassign
Thanks for your comments.
> Currently final /8 policy ONLY allow allocations, so even if there are enough space in 203.119/16 when we enter final /8,
> critical infrastructure users still have no way to justify their needs using '11.3 Critical Infrastructure Policy',
>o.k. If you say so. Although originally that wasn't my interpretation of the effect of prop-62-v002. But it seems as written to be the case.
Yes, that wasn't my interpretation either, but from the policy text, this is the case.
>
> if the 203.119/16 is used up when we enter final /8, that shows the need is steady, it's reasonable
> to open another block for it.
>sorry "if".. that is stretching it a bit.. And that is the problem I have. With still over 60% of the 203.119/16 still remaining and a consumption rate at such a low level, and even with the new IDNs (which generally go to the existing gTLD/ccTLD) and TLDs I would rather see an pragmatic analysis of the proposed CI demand backed by facts which coincide by the last /8 mark to say that the CI /16 would be consumed by then and there would be a very very high likely-hood of another block from the /8 required for CI.. if we aren't all on IPv6 by then.
I don't stick to this point, it's just a theoretical assumption, practically, I don't expect this will happen,
if we can continue use the Critical Infrastructure block for CI assignments during the final /8 phase,
I will be happy.
>My other point is at the final APNIC /8 point AND the 203.119/16 is consumed I see very little difference between a new CI organisation and a LIR. Why should we bless one category in particular?
The thing is allocation for LIR is allowed in the final /8 phase but CI assignment are not allowed,
the difference is CI operator may not be able to justify a /22 needs.